Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Mongoose Traveller (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=122)
-   -   Differences in Deck Plans (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19890)

aeontrin July 1st, 2009 03:44 PM

Differences in Deck Plans
 
Just out of curiosity and definitely not out to start a flame war, but why are there so many differences between deck plans in MGT and the various CT/MT deck plans?

atpollard July 1st, 2009 03:58 PM

As a quick and dirty 'rule of thumb', each square on a deckplan represents 0.5 tons of displacement. By counting the squares on a deckplan, one can quickly determing the approximate size of ship. Most CT deckplans (often duplicated exactly in MT) are very far off in size, some deckplans depicting twice as much tonnage as the ships they are intended to represent.

MgT attempted to 'reimagine' the ships and deckplans, thus made changes from the original for technical reasons (like flawed original deckplans) or artistic license.

Thus the differences (and no flame war).

aeontrin July 1st, 2009 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 323460)
As a quick and dirty 'rule of thumb', each square on a deckplan represents 0.5 tons of displacement. By counting the squares on a deckplan, one can quickly determing the approximate size of ship. Most CT deckplans (often duplicated exactly in MT) are very far off in size, some deckplans depicting twice as much tonnage as the ships they are intended to represent.

MgT attempted to 'reimagine' the ships and deckplans, thus made changes from the original for technical reasons (like flawed original deckplans) or artistic license.

Thus the differences (and no flame war).

Still, I probably will use the old ones (particularly the Scout which bothers me because of that wide lower deck and because of the overly large bridge).

atpollard July 1st, 2009 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeontrin (Post 323461)
Still, I probably will use the old ones (particularly the Scout which bothers me because of that wide lower deck and because of the overly large bridge).

I greatly prefer the clean lines of the original scout to it's later incarnations, but that deckplan (if projected into 3D) will not fit within that wedge shape.

In addition, the CT design rules (LBB2 and HG) both require 20 tons of bridge for any ship of 100 tons or more. It is hard to designate 40 squares on that deckplan as "Bridge" without including a big chunk of the commons.

Functionally, it is a nice deckplan. It just doesn't match the rules or illustration of the ship.

aramis July 1st, 2009 04:38 PM

The Type S deckplan is actually pretty reasonable IF you presume the upper and lower decks are half-height. I went and counted out 1.5m cubes and dreafted them up in CC2... the result is http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gal...ypeSHikaru.PNG

aeontrin July 2nd, 2009 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 323464)
I greatly prefer the clean lines of the original scout to it's later incarnations, but that deckplan (if projected into 3D) will not fit within that wedge shape.

In addition, the CT design rules (LBB2 and HG) both require 20 tons of bridge for any ship of 100 tons or more. It is hard to designate 40 squares on that deckplan as "Bridge" without including a big chunk of the commons.

Functionally, it is a nice deckplan. It just doesn't match the rules or illustration of the ship.

I don't think the MGT version of the Scout addresses the wedge problem either, with that wide lower deck.

Also, IIRC, the bridge on the CT Scout did not map out to 20 dTons either.

Later,

Will

atpollard July 2nd, 2009 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeontrin (Post 323583)
I don't think the MGT version of the Scout addresses the wedge problem either, with that wide lower deck.

Also, IIRC, the bridge on the CT Scout did not map out to 20 dTons either.

You are correct on both accounts - but I am trying hard to look at the positive in MgT.

Why is it that after 30+ years of trying that none of the official deckplans for Scout Ships (arguably the most frequently encountered PC ship) are able to fit within their hulls? There are incredibly talented ametuers and professionals playing this game, but the 'official' deckplan is never even close to fitting.

The whole 20 ton bridge for 100 to 1000 ton ships annoys the heck out of me. After all, a 1 person 'bridge' on a scout is the same size as the 10 person bridge on a superfreighter (both are 20 tons). So where are all of the "comminications", "sensors", "avionics" and "air locks" (that consume so much of the bridge on a scout) on the 1000 ton ship, where all 20 tons are dedicated to crew stations? Why does a 1000 ton ship need so much less equipment than a 100 ton ship? Why does a 100 ton ship need so much more equipment than a 1000 ton ship?

Just stick with bridge = 2% of the ship for all sizes.
Then the physical 'bridge' on the scout deckplan is just about right.
But Marc and Matt didn't ask me. :)

aramis July 2nd, 2009 05:34 PM

Actually, AT, the question is why do ships over 1000tons need more than the 20Td minimum?

What exactly does that 20Td represent?

ThunderChilde July 2nd, 2009 05:41 PM

Meh, 4 tons is awfully tight for a 100 ton ship. It seems to me that there is an absolute minimum size for a bridge. The cockpits of all the middle to large airliners are fairly similar in size, and frankly a "Scout Ship" would need a bit more space than a frieghter, just for all the advanced comms and sensors that are thier stock in trade.

Just my .02 CrImp

flykiller July 2nd, 2009 07:07 PM

Quote:

... the question is why do ships over 1000tons need more than the 20Td minimum?
the bridge is about command and control. as ships get larger they require larger and more robust systems to exercise that control, and not all of those systems will be "on the bridge". for example: docking stations, electrical distribution load centers, engineering operating stations, local control panels, landing gear operation stations, flight control station, damage control stations, auxiliary fuel pump stations, captain's day room, ship's external office, ship's internal office, staff officer offices, all the lockers necessary to hold the equipment to maintain that equipment, and all the space necessary to access that equipment. big naval ships will have a quarterdeck, an admiral's battle station, a master-at-arms security station, and maybe a marine assault command station.

if big bridges are seriously annoying then one may implement house rules, such counting the computer as bridge and not counting fuel, cargo, and armor dtonnage towards the bridge size requirement (in my opinion this works well). or one may detail each component of a bridge and then count towards dtonnage only those components that are included in the design (far too detailed for anything I want to do in a game).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.